2 questions to ask a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2012, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2012 03:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  No, I didn't miss the point. I'm addressing that REGARDLESS of what he said, the 4 Gospels were already well known - He didn't choose the Gospels for the rest of us or FOR the Bible.

You DID miss the point. The POINT is he suppressed the OTHERS, not that he chose the 4, but the METHODOLOGY he used for the inclusion, or exclusion of anything, in or out. The criteria, had nothing to do with content, for EXCLUSION, which left your 4.

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  We don't measure the texts based on who SPEAKS about them or uses them, but upon the texts themselves: ie through comparisons of other "matching" texts from other times and places, etc.
.
You don't "measure" anything. You BELIEVE they are the Word. What other "matching texts", from other times and places". Name 2.
It doesn't matter if they "fit" or not. The suppression was not done on the basis of "fit", as Irenaeus himself said.

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  External source? So, you are now using the fallacy of origin argument: it can't be true because of the origin of the source.

Clearly, you don't even know what those words mean. You need an EXTERNAL (non-Christian) source, to corroborate your texts. There is not one, and in fact the similarities to other known extant myth systems is SO similar, that you have the FURTHER job of explaining that.

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  You have use NO sources other than to show that people admitted to lying - and these were INTERNAL to this FORUM!

I have. You're just too lazy to read it.
Here's another one.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm


(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Nor have you backed up your claim about the Pearl.

At this point, that's the LEAST of your problems.

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Nor have you shown that Irenaes had any MAJOR influence on the selection of the four Gospels. Just that he said something funny. Nothing new.

A Christian Father of the Church, "said something funny" ?? Sorry, your need for your delusions is showing. EVERY scholar, and Church Historian accepts that he did suppression, and YOUR sect's people teach it.

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  You wish history to be proven - it can't be done. No history professor, scholar, etc. will say you can.

Typical Christian evasion. There are historical-critical methods and systems of evidence, by which historians and scholars come to understand what they think they know, including historians and scholars at every major Christian University and college, in THEIR own History and Bible Studies departments. So, now you're saying THEY all practice shamanism too ? Clearly you are neither an historian, nor a scholar of any sort. Just another, run of the mill idiot, (for whomever).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2012 03:36 PM by Idiot for Christ.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Quote:Thanks for answering. Let me push a little bit further into your head and let’s see how entrenched the cognitive dissonance is.

ROCK ON!

Quote:2) What are the religious views of those closest to you? (I.E. what are the religious views of your parents and closest friends)

“My mother is Lutheran, my sister and her family are Lutheran. My wife grew up going to all sorts of churches, etc. Nothing stable though. I have friends who are Catholic, Orthodox, non-denom, GLBT Protestant, and atheist as well.”[/i]

3) How does the answer to the above question influence your personal religious views?

“It influences me in the fact that I get questioned on what I believe and why I believe it. Certainly with my Protestant friends, we don’t disagree on much, and nothing along the lines of Dogma. But with my other friends etc. questions are brought up – always in a civil manner – and discussed. Sometimes I have answers, sometimes I don’t and have to do study to see if answers do exist, and if the answers logically follow.”

I am going to address both answers here. You grew-up in a religious community that is Christian and you are likely American or English (since you say Lutheran I am going to go with American, and maybe East Coast? More northerly?) My questions are primarily probing to find out if you are aware of the fact that had you been born in Pakistan your religious views would be different. Had you been born to Muslim parents in the UK, your religious views would be different. Had you been born in Utah to Mormon missionaries, your religious views would be different. Agree or disagree? Why or Why not?

1) yep, they could be different certainly.

2) However, regardless of what I would have believed or where I have lived says NOTHING to my current belief being correct or not. Sure I might have grown up muslim, but the fact that I didn't says nothing about if my belief is TRUE only explains a possible reason WHY I believe it.

Quote:The second question seems to cement the fact that while you discuss religion with those closest to you, the disagreements are over dogma and the agreements remain fundamentally Christian. Ergo, it doesn’t sound like the discussions involve actually discussing the likelihood that any of it is right. I must admit that I make some broad generalizations about these discussions from limited information and you say you have atheist friends as well. How often do these discussions occur with them? How do they typically end?

I never said we didn't discuss if the dogmas were right or not, only that we don't DEBATE over them. Of course if we discuss dogmas, we look at whether or not they are right - as I said later in my post, I am interested in truth. Second, just because it's "like minded" people, doesn't mean we are parrots of each other. As for the atheist friends, it's not unlike what happens on these forums - the sames questions get asked, and we discuss them. They usually happen over beers and end with everyone happy and ready to watch a movie or drink more beer.

Quote:4) What had a bigger impact on the spread of Christianity: its stories and Jesus or the acceptance by the Roman hierarchy as the official state religion?

“Jesus, clearly. While it’s argued that the Roman’s acceptance helped Christianity – Christianity was doing fine without it. Despite the early persecution – the message – Gospel – held firm and still spread. I’m not saying it wasn’t helped – but the message Jesus brought is clearly what resonated. Whether or not Constatine was truly a Christian – I’ll let God decide.”

[b]Historians would disagree. The Christian worldview was not doing well prior to its adoption by the Romans. History shows us that areas that already have an occupied territory with their own beliefs and customs, don’t convert to other peoples beliefs based on the merit of their arguments. They either convert at the tip of the sword (South American Missionaries), they are wiped out by settlers or disease (Native Americans) or they simply shrug off the interested missionaries as a mere nuisance (China, Japan, The Koreas, etc). Had the Roman empire not adopted Christianity as the state religion, you would be a polytheist, as would most of the western world.[b/]

Speculative at best about your outcome - and of course neither provable or disprovable. Again, says nothing about the validity of the belief though. As for the disagreement with historians - I suspect we can argue as to what "doing well" and "not doing" well means. Sure, I'll side with the historians and clarify what I meant - Christianity was around, while small, it was strong and (as I said) Rome certainly helped, but it wasn't needed.

Quote:[b]I know you want the answer to be Jesus, but similar figures had been preaching similar ideas for some time prior to his arrival. Other figures similar to Jesus supposedly performed similar miracles (including the resurrection you have been challenged on multiple times here). Nothing Jesus preached was unique, other than the fact that Constantine saw an opportunity to expand his power into what he believed in as the afterlife.

Again, debateable there as there are several schools of though re: Constatine problem is? Neither of us can prove either.

But let's go with he DID do it to expand power - does this negate the validity of Christianity?

Nope.

But what about PRIOR to Constatine?

Certainly other were "similar" to Jesus - but where are they now? Where are their followers? what happened to their faithful? How did this small band of Christians (or goat herders as some folks incorrectly call them) spread THEIR message over the others? They didn't use ROMAN tactics - no, they used small bands of folks and preached the Gospel - unless you can point to some other ACTUAL reason beyond speculation one is reasonable to assume the growth PRIOR to Rome WAS because of the message, Jesus.

And this message spread, also, without the help of printing press or large empires FORCING people into it.

Again, we could speculate where it would be now had Rome NOT chosen Christianity - but we would be doing just that: SPECULATING.

But as I stated, PRIOR to Constatine it was spreading (and despite heavy persecution it was still around) and why did it spread? The message; Jesus.

If you believe otherwise, I'm interested to hear it.

Quote:5) What evidence is there to support the existence of a god?

“This is a longer answer than I will supply here – but will be more than glad to get into this further. However, just a couple of pieces: 1) life. 2) love. 3) logic. 4) that ANYTHING exists at all. 5) “rules” of the world and universe at large. 6) the propensity of anything “seeming” to be created usually is. Etc.”

6) How does this evidence prove the Christian version of god and not a different version or multiple gods?

“As much as I’d like there to be “proof” there isn’t. However, there is what I would consider to be greater evidence FOR the Christian God than another or multiple gods. Again this could be a longer answer than I put here and we can dive into it if you wish. However, this isn’t to say there COULDN’T be other gods – just that there is only ONE TRUE God. Monotheism allows for lesser gods, but not over THE God.”

This is where I get really fuzzy with theist-logic. In response to question 5 you provide what you see as evidence, and then your opening line to question 6’s response is that there isn’t any proof. I am really confused by that. Either evidence exists and it is a reality-based and fact-based belief, or none exists and it is based on faith, which means a belief without evidence or even in spite of evidence to the contrary. [b/]

There's evidence Caesar crossed the Rubicon - however, there is NO PROOF of this - do you believe it though?

There is evidence of God existence - however does it PROVE God? Nope.

Quote:[b]Trying to argue that anything existing is proof of a god is the argument from ignorance. I don’t know, therefore god. The question of “Why does anything exist at all?” has an answer of “I don’t know” but that doesn’t mean a default answer is god. [b/]

Correct, however as I stated there is evidence for God - we can discuss WHY it's evidence. But it's far from "I don't know."

Quote:[b]All of your examples in question 5’s response imply that you are able to make a comparison with either A) nonexistence (we have never observed nonexistence) B) that there exists a universe devoid of life, love, logic, different rules, and you can compare our universe to it. You have a sample set of exactly 1. 1 universe. You can’t compare it to another universe, and you can’t compare it to nothing, because you can’t demonstrate the existence of either (which begs the question of, if you prove nothing exists, is it still nothing?)

Glad you're not into question begging.

Anyhow, you are in the same position. You can hardly say with more certainty that God doesn't exist than I can that he does. You and both have the same sample sets of a universe. You can't compare it either, etc.

Quote:The rest of question 6’s response is based on your desire to believe. I don’t think I need to point out the logical fallacy there.

Please point them out.

Quote:If no evidence exists and faith must be the means by which to believe, then;
7) Why do believers attempt to justify their beliefs using "evidence?"

“Well, again, I would say there is evidence – which we can discuss further – but like any belief people try to come up with evidence to support it, even if there is lacking or none at all. Why? Because we are usually asked to defend our belief, whatever it may be. Religious belief is no exception. Though, I will add – one’s lacking ability to back one’s belief up, does not necessarily mean the belief is false.

Question missing.

Quote:Very nice question. I would start by saying God would RATHER that we knew him more personally than through the Bible (however, knowing how we are….) Second, evidence by the masses or singularly? Example. I’m pretty damn sure my wife loves me. Now, I can provide you with what I think is evidence of such – however none of it actually PROVE she loves me. A person who didn’t love me could very well do the same things that I list for evidence. But, would you trust me in that I know my wife loves me? Sure, trusting me that God exists is quite a further stretch…but I think you can see my point. Also, as shown through the Bible – while God did deal with Israel as a nation, he also and more often dealt with people one on one. One on one foster a better relationship. Also, what confirms God for some, doesn’t for others. Could you name ONE THING that would truly confirm God’s existence for EVERYONE?

No. For whatever you (or I) came up with, we could find people who wouldn’t believe and reasons that it wouldn’t qualify as evidence for some.”

[b]Your wife exists, I can question the veracity of that claim myself. We can demonstrate the linkage between different emotions and areas of our brains, so we have physical evidence by which to say that chemical processes lead to perceived bonds between individuals and a close commensal relationship for the mutual benefit of all parties involved (i.e. love).

The concept of having to provide evidence for believing is a recent phenomenon as a result of ever increasing evidence that shrinks the gaps that god has classically been interpreted. If someone believes based on faith, I can at least accept that they know they have no evidence or logical basis for their claims, but to assert that any evidence exists for it is a bold-faced lie or a complete misunderstanding for what evidence is.[b]

First, none of what you present PROVES my wife loves me. It's evidence that she does, however deep inside she may hate me. hate, we know, is a bond as well.

Remember I said that there is no SURE FIRE way to convince EVERYONE that God exists - no matter what, there will be people that won't/don't - even if we could give them better evidence than for their own existence.

Quote:[b]You may have to provide your “evidence” in more detail. I should point out that most of my objections will likely be in the form of pointing any logical fallacies, so it may help to know what they are.

We can get to those for sure. I'll put together a more comprehensive list and we can go through them.

Quote:9) If faith is sufficient, then why do we need the bible?

“Perhaps the simplest reason: we are tactile. WE would want a Bible, regardless, I would argue. We WANT something, anything, that we can hold, see, touch, feel, etc…and we do this for even less things. Shake hands on an agreement…why? Isn’t the agreement enough? The hell does shacking hands really do?

So my argument would be, that WE have (and would) ask for such – and don’t we now? Don’t you, in some way, wish for tactile type evidence for a god?”


So people don’t actually want to believe anything based on faith? I agree. Which is why people search for support of their claims but often fail to realize the fallacies they commit when trying to assert the existence of something supernatural from natural evidence.

Well, there is a challenge of supernatural from natural. By it's very nature NATRUAL is "less than" SUPERNATURAL - I'm sure you would agree. Thus, being that WE are within the confines of the natural world - it is quite hard to for us bring IN (so to speak) the supernatural. We don't have that power. Like a fish in a fish bowl can't show that there are snakes out in the grass - beyond it's possible scope.

But again, we assert our belief based on evidence: philsophical, logical, scientific, historical, personal experiences, etc.

Quote:10) Are you?
“Very much so, which is why I often ask for evidence AGAINST God in discussions. Much of what we DON’T believe in isn’t simply because there is LACK of evidence (as argued for God) but ALSO because we have evidence AGAINST such a belief. Which is why I use Santa a lot. There IS evidence against Santa – which is why none of us believe him to be real. Not JUST lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is only one side of the coin for disbelief. Currently we have NO EVIDENCE for life on other planets – so should we just assume and believe there isn’t? We can, for sure, but what if there is? There could be, DESPITE having NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.

I am interested in the truth.

AND I am not afraid to be wrong. If I am found to be wrong, well then I am glad to finally know the truth. I don’t believe because I WANT to believe or because I was TOLD to believe, but because I have found what I believe to be true.

If it can be truly shown that what I believe is wrong, then I will gladly admit it and cast away my prior belief. One can only grow if one truly accepts when they are wrong.

I know that I didn’t answer your questions fully, so if you would like to go back and dive into one further, I would be more than happy to.

Thanks for the questions.”


If you ask for evidence against anything that does not exist, you are committing an egregious logical error as to what it means to not exist. If something doesn’t exist, then by definition there is no evidence to demonstrate that claim. You can’t prove the nonexistence of anything (even Santa), you can only demonstrate that it is unlikely to exist based on a paucity of evidence.[b/]

which is why I like the Santa example. there is evidence AGAINST the existence of Santa. Proof? No, but evidence AGAINST.

I don't ask for proof. I ask for evidence AGAINST.

If someone can give me enough evidence AGAINST my belief, then I would have to a reconsideration of my belief and side with the evidence.

As of yet, no one has done that - or tried for that matter.

However, (and you can find this even in this thread I believe) Atheists use "prove" a lot the time toward us theists. As in: PROVE Jesus rose from the dead. or PROVE God exists. Etc.

It can't be done in either direction - only the weighing of the evidence FOR and AGAINST - as we do for Santa.

As of yet, I have not been presented with great evidence AGAINST God...

Perhaps you are willing to take up that challenge.

Quote:[b]Let’s use something other than Santa (since we can agree the ol’ Fat guy is certainly not real, I mean obviously. A guy who is immortal, and can read millions/billions of hopes/dreams/wishes in one sitting, while being able to ascertain whether or not everyone is good or bad through monitoring them all at the same time? Who would believe such absurdities). Let’s use Big Foot. Currently no zoologist recognizes the existence of Big Foot, and yet, you are not likely to find one who will tell you with 100% that one does not exist. The lack of evidence demonstrates that the most logical option is to reject the claim of its existence until proven otherwise, but a lack of evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate nonexistence.[b/]


Lack of evidence is ONLY good evidence against something if we can establish that we should see MORE evidence of it. So I agree with you, lack of evidence is NOT sufficient to demonstrate nonexistence - HOWEVER this is the basis of many atheists on here.

The most common answer for Why don't you believe in God is: no evidence.

Not: "because of the overwhelming evidence AGAINST God"

But: "no evidence."

However, as you yourself pointed out - that SOLEY is INSUFFICIENT to reject such a claim for existence.

It's only when we ALSO mount evidence AGAINST said being's existence is when we become more secure and rational in our belief of it's non-existence.

Quote:[b]Life on other planets is an assumption based not on evidence on other planets, but on the odds that conditions here on Earth that appear to be conducive to life, appear elsewhere in the universe. That does not mean it does exist, but that conditions such as those on Earth may exist on millions of planets and that may mean life could exist there. That is of course contingent upon the fact that life must be Carbon-based and that life can only exist in Earth-like conditions, we of course can’t definitively say that, which may mean that the odds of life existing elsewhere is even better. But that is pure speculation and is why we don’t conclude in science that life does exist anywhere else but Earth, we leave that to Science-FICTION.[b/]

Ah, yes, but you have to admit - science is behind reality, that is, there still could be life, we just don't have a way to find it yet.

Being the case, neither pro/con position has much to stand on - however, there isn't a default position to take either.

And I would argue much the same with God. Neither theism or atheism is a default position. As atheism as a default makes the mistake of NOT taking into consideration the reality that all is NOT KNOWN.


Quote:We shall see regarding the last few sentences and you are welcome for the questions, I eagerly await your new responses.

There you go!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 12:12 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
there is no dark side of the moon, really. matter of fact it's all dark.

Which is a paucity of photons to stimulate receptors in the eye, but the universe is a balmy 2.73 degrees Kelvin. Which is to say, there is no "dark." There is also no "opposite" to electromagnetic radiation. Big Grin

And of course god created sin. That's what the book says. By making law, alla sudden shit becomes illegal. It's like rolling out some cookie dough. Press in your Jesus cookie cutter, and you don't have just a Jesus cookie, you got Jesus cookie plus non-Jesus non-cookie which you smoosh up and reroll.

And what is creation? I draw a picture, I'm reordering canvas and pigment, stuff that exists outside of me before and after, not something that comes from me ex-nihilo. That's another thing in the book - the earth was without form, and void - then god got his orderer out. God the engineer by your own texts, not god the creator. Undecided

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like houseofcantor's post
28-09-2012, 12:20 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
I think part of your comment was inadvertently embedded in the quote box?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 12:29 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 12:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I think part of your comment was inadvertently embedded in the quote box?

Yeah, the whole thing is - I'll have to fix it later, sorry!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 03:26 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 11:39 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  So, if logic exists - yet you do not know how it can. then why can't God exist, without you knowing how?
He can. But I see no evidence that he does and plenty of reasons to believe that he doesn't. The point is just because he can exist doesn't mean he does exist. And just because I can't explain exactly how everything came into existence doesn't mean the answer is any god. And it doesn't mean it isn't. However, I have yet to hear even one good reason to believe in any god's existence. But I could easily write a book on all the reasons I have for not believing.

(28-09-2012 11:39 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Now, the answer might not satisfy you that you don't know HOW/WHY God exists - however, by your admission something CAN exist and NOT be created.
Actually, I have admitted no such thing. What I said is I don't know whether logic was created or simply exists without creation. That means I recognize the possibility that it could simply exist. But it's also possible that existing without being created is an impossibility in which case it would mean that logic definitely was created. I remain in the "open to finding the answer" mode and haven't concluded anything.

(28-09-2012 11:39 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Sin is - not created. It's the opposite of God, like dark is the opposite of light - however light doesn't CREATE dark does it?

Love is God's nature - and thus NOT created.

I'm not expecting you to be "convinced" but to show you that even you beleive things exist without being CREATED. It's then, not a stretch to at least theorize how God's nature of LOVE and it's opposite SIN can exist without being created.

Creation is OUTSIDE of the creator. A drawing I create is outside of me. God IS LOVE - he didn't create it. Sin is the opposite, like dark is lights.
I'm not now and never was expecting you to convince me. My original point was that you don't believe your own Christian faith. If logic or anything else exists outside of your god without directly coming from him, then it must have existed before him and he came into being within that context. However, as I'm sure you know, Christianity teaches that God always existed and never came into being. He exists outside time and outside everything else as well as throughout everything. Everything except God exists because of God. That is what Christianity teaches. So how do you reconcile that with your statement about sin and about creation existing outside the creator? (By the way, your drawing would be physically outside you when finished, but was created from within you. The paper and materials you used to draw are outside you, but you didn't create those.)

A quick word about dark vs. light and sin vs. love: darkness is the absence of light. Sin is not the absence of love nor is it love's opposite. Sin is the opposite of morality. Hate is the opposite of love. Sin is the presence of immorality. It is a positive in the opposite direction from morality. Darkness is a negative by simply being the absence of light. You don't introduce darkness. You remove light. You do introduce sin. The analogy you were attempting doesn't work.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 03:46 PM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2012 09:19 AM by Idiot for Christ.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
DANG IT, did it again - here's the fix - sorry!

Quote:You DID miss the point. The POINT is he suppressed the OTHERS, not that he chose the 4, but the METHODOLOGY he used for the inclusion, or exclusion of anything, in or out. The criteria, had nothing to do with content, for EXCLUSION, which left your 4.

he PERSONALLY DID, yes. HOWEVER the others were still out there circulating otherwise he wouldn't have felt the need to make his proclomation. And even AFTER he made his comment the other Gospels were still AROUND.

And guess what?

They still are.

If are making the leap that HE and ONLY HE dictated what the four Gospels were to be in our Bible - you have failed to do so.

Not to mention he died in 202.

It wasn't for another 50 some odd years that more and more of the NT (as we see it today) was accepted.

Quote:You don't "measure" anything. You BELIEVE they are the Word. What other "matching texts", from other times and places". Name 2.
It doesn't matter if they "fit" or not. The suppression was not done on the basis of "fit", as Irenaeus himself said.

Correct I don't measure the texts as I haven't seen the texts - Biblical scholars have. Guess what they found? You should know, it's your field correct?

I shouldn't need to post this for you, yet I will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

And there's even text books on it.

http://www.amazon.com/Students-Guide-Tex...0830827315

Again, WHAT SUPPRESSION? The texts are still out there! All of them, do a google search, go to the library. Read them.

Of course FIT matters! To say it doesn't is ridiculous. that's like saying, it doesn't matter about fit, English poems should not be SUPRESSED from Physics books!

It's a matter of getting to the truth with the writings. The fact that most writings don't compare well to each other speaks to the fact they aren't reliable.

The NT is quite reliable - when compared to the thousands of texts available from all over and different times, it holds very well.

The "suppressed" books?

They don't hold up well at all.

Quote:Clearly, you don't even know what those words mean. You need an EXTERNAL (non-Christian) source, to corroborate your texts. There is not one, and in fact the similarities to other known extant myth systems is SO similar, that you have the FURTHER job of explaining that.

Please cite myths please so we can address them.

Second, I think you should read The Jesus Legend. This deals with external "non-Christian" sources

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  You have use NO sources other than to show that people admitted to lying - and these were INTERNAL to this FORUM!

I have. You're just too lazy to read it.
Here's another one.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

Interesting, I'll check it out.

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Nor have you backed up your claim about the Pearl.

Quote: At this point, that's the LEAST of your problems.

Not sure why that's stopping you...

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Nor have you shown that Irenaes had any MAJOR influence on the selection of the four Gospels. Just that he said something funny. Nothing new.

Quote:A Christian Father of the Church, "said something funny" ?? Sorry, your need for your delusions is showing. EVERY scholar, and Church Historian accepts that he did suppression, and YOUR sect's people teach it.

Again, he died in 202 - what was stopping the other books from being part of the Bible? They didn't fit, you want suppression.

But hey, if you think the Gospel of Thomas SHOULDN'T be suppressed from the Bible - make the case. I think it's preaty clear it shouldn't be in the Bible.

(28-09-2012 11:33 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  You wish history to be proven - it can't be done. No history professor, scholar, etc. will say you can.

Quote:Typical Christian evasion. There are historical-critical methods and systems of evidence, by which historians and scholars come to understand what they think they know, including historians and scholars at every major Christian University and college, in THEIR own History and Bible Studies departments. So, now you're saying THEY all practice shamanism too ? Clearly you are neither an historian, nor a scholar of any sort. Just another, run of the mill idiot, (for whomever).

Not an evasion but a truth. You can't even prove yesterday happened - reasonable people admit this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 03:52 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 04:05 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 11:39 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Sin is - not created. It's the opposite of God, like dark is the opposite of light - however light doesn't CREATE dark does it?

If the structure of Reality is something in which god(s) exist, then they are not the cause (creator) of everything, and there HAS to be another cause for the nature of Reality. If god is "subject" to the structure of Reality, he is not god. If there IS an "opposite" to god, (and that's not the classical definition, you just made that up), then the very structure of god (vs sin) IS a structure. Where did the structure come from ? Christian Theology nowhere says "sin is". Nowhere. You're inventing a new theology of sin here. NO Christian says that. Sin, in Christian theology came into existence, in time,
1. when the angels rebelled,
2. when Eve ate the apple, and gave it to Adam.

(28-09-2012 11:39 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Creation is OUTSIDE of the creator. A drawing I create is outside of me. God IS LOVE - he didn't create it. Sin is the opposite, like dark is lights.

Unless god IS sin, (evil), and sin exists outside god, sin is the eternally co-existant opposite of god, then he could NOT have created that which is his eternally co-existent opposite, unless you're saying he creates himself, and ALONG with that, also creates his opposite, (sin).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 04:21 PM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2012 04:36 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 04:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-09-2012 11:39 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Sin is - not created. It's the opposite of God, like dark is the opposite of light - however light doesn't CREATE dark does it?

If the structure of Reality is something in which god(s) exist, then they are not the cause (creator) of everything, and there HAS to be another cause for the nature of Reality. If god is "subject" to the structure of Reality, he is not god. If there IS an "opposite" to god, (and that's not the classical definition, you just made that up), then the very structure of god (vs sin) IS a structure. Where did the structure come from ? Christian Theology nowhere says "sin is". Nowhere. You're inventing a new theology of sin here. NO Christian says that. Sin, in Christian theology came into existence, in time,
1. when the angels rebelled,
2. when Eve ate the apple, and gave it to Adam.

(28-09-2012 11:39 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Creation is OUTSIDE of the creator. A drawing I create is outside of me. God IS LOVE - he didn't create it. Sin is the opposite, like dark is lights.

Unless god IS sin, (evil), and sin exists outside god, sin is the eternally co-existant opposite of god, then he could NOT have created that which is his eternally co-existent opposite, unless you're saying he creates himself, and ALONG with that, also creates his opposite, (sin).

Another fucking idiot taking on the resident atheist Doctor of Divinity. Like a barroom brawler taking on Marciano. Not only is it highly entertaining, it warms me cockles I tell you. I gonna start making book on how many posts these fuckers last after tickling Bucky'sBalls.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: